"It just seems that it's so regressive and so grim and so unreal, like in some dystopian sci-fi movie: there's only one way to express yourself as some kind of neutered thing, this mound, this clump, turning away from your gender-based responses - towards women, towards men, towards sex. This neutering, this castration, is something no-one really wants or believes in, I hope. But hey, maybe if I go with it and pretend to believe it, it'll fill my column - and I do need to put out some clickbait this week."

Says Bret Easton Ellis, complaining about a specific incident which if you go to the link to find out about, you will, if you scroll down, be imposed on by a photograph — an arty photograph — that includes a bare breast.

You can also listen to his rant in podcast form, here, which I did. No bare breast to intrude on your peace of mind if you're listening to a podcast, other than the bare breasts your mind's eye summons up. That's an imposition of another kind. When I listened, I listened distractedly enough to hear "I do need to put out some clickbait this week" as BEE disparaging his own writing.

24 comments:

Why does anyone ever fool themselves into believing that the Left does anything else but become "an authoritarian cultural movement"?

If a movement tells you as an example of their profound political wisdom that "The Personal is Political", you think that those of people aren't going to fuck with every detail of your life, no matter how private?

I have the greatest deal EVAH in a suspension bridge I want you to buy into....

The SJWs would be merely pathetic if not for how seriously they are taken by our elites. They are and will be a clueless pack of insipid morons too culturally castrated and devoid of testosterone to do anything but whine. It is the fact that adults take them seriously that is dangerous. For a primer on how to deal with SJWs, watch any film from the fifties when a woman starts hyperventilating.

"Why is it once again that I feel the well-intentioned young liberal self-proclaimed feminist left has become so oversensitive about everything that we have entered into what is really an authoritarian cultural moment?" Why, oh why? Because that's who they are and that's what they do? Because any leftist cause always turns into coercion?

"there's only one way to express yourself as some kind of neutered thing, this mound, this clump, turning away from your gender-based responses - towards women, towards men, towards sex. This neutering, this castration, is something no-one really wants or believes in." It depends. If the neutering serves a prog purpose, for example to put white males in their place, it's good; if it doesn't, it isn't -- for example, if it is used to impose on trannies who want to come out, it's bad. In prog politics, all arguments and all ethics are situational.

"Why is it once again that I feel the well-intentioned young liberal self-proclaimed feminist left has become so oversensitive about everything that we have entered into what is really an authoritarian cultural moment?"

Ironically, the stance of these "well-intentioned" feminists simply recapitulates, with shiny modern cant, the old Victorian attitude: that one mustn't talk frankly about serious topics in front of the ladies.

Really, the Victorians had it all down.

Or perhaps I am thinking of the Edwardian era? When was the "Lips that touch liquor shall not touch ours" campaign? Anyhow, the twin stereotypes of (1) women as hysterical and incapable of participating in serious or frank discussions without going mad and (2) women as humorless killjoys dedicated to using the withholding of sex as a means of draining the joy out of human life are amply supported by modern feminism. In lot of ways, they are like a crude parody of Victorian attitudes, like a cartoon.

We were on twitter yesterday hashing out Anita Sarkeesian, SJW queen bee, and her latest complaints about misogyny in gaming. (It's her career now, so her bluster is her living.) In all the gaming that I do (and I do a lot) I haven't encountered the misogyny that inspires her. And we realized that Anita doesn't game. She only rants about it. How can you have a resonating opinion about something you don't at least experience, let alone feel passion for?

That seems to be the modus for SJW complaints. They don't love the game (or, in this case, the music/artist), they just love the outrage.

@Balfegor Ironically, the stance of these "well-intentioned" feminists simply recapitulates, with shiny modern cant, the old Victorian attitude: that one mustn't talk frankly about serious topics in front of the ladies.

Really, the Victorians had it all down.

Or perhaps I am thinking of the Edwardian era? When was the "Lips that touch liquor shall not touch ours" campaign? Anyhow, the twin stereotypes of (1) women as hysterical and incapable of participating in serious or frank discussions without going mad and (2) women as humorless killjoys dedicated to using the withholding of sex as a means of draining the joy out of human life are amply supported by modern feminism. In lot of ways, they are like a crude parody of Victorian attitudes, like a cartoon.

She has youth going for her, which is an unfair advantage.She looks much better in other pictures but certainly has a propensity for the outre. The choice of presentation is bizarre. But I am no artist.

In response to the actual Ellis piece: posing is an invitation to look. Putting yourself, naked, on the cover of your album is an invitation for people to comment on your naked body. Even if they don't listen to the album. You are both the artist recording the songs and the promotional model selling the songs, and people are entitled to react to either one of those personas.